Klebs v. Indiana

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an expert’s conclusion that police force was not “justified under the circumstances” constituted an impermissible legal conclusion
• holding that purported expert testimony about the meaning of “deadly physical force” impermissibly communicated a legal standard to the jury, but affirming because the lower court’s error was harmless
• holding that purported expert testimony about the meaning of “deadly physical force” impermissibly communicated a legal standard to the jury, but affirming because the lower court’s error was harmless
• holding that courts are “require[ed]” to “exclu[de]” “expert testimony that expresses a legal conclusion”
• noting that a trial court has discretion to grant Rule 59 motions to avoid a “miscarriage of justice” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that an expert witness “is not qualified to compete with the judge in the function of instructing the jury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).